If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am assuming that you are in agreeance that the use of drones to kill civiliians (accidental or otherwise), no matter their nationality, is abhorrent? I do sometimes get concerned that the "one rule for us and one rule for them" ideology is far too prevalent in certain sections of US policy making.

I see it for what it really is. A global assassination campaign that defies the rule of law, the constitution, international law, habaes corpus and the sovereignty of nations. That has murdered countless innocent people in nations that had nothing to do with 9-11. A war crime that is no different than a terrorist attack.

"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"

I see it for what it really is. A global assassination campaign that defies the rule of law, the constitution, international law, habaes corpus and the sovereignty of nations. That has murdered countless innocent people in nations that had nothing to do with 9-11. A war crime that is no different than a terrorist attack.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

If we believe that words and actions of radical islamists and they really want to attack America any way necessary, then it could be considered "a global assassination campaign that defends the rule of law and the Constitution."

International law is for countries that have the will and ability to oppose terrorism that originates from within their sovereign borders. Take care of your own internal problems and this won't be a problem for your country.

“I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."

If we believe that words and actions of radical islamists and they really want to attack America any way necessary, then it could be considered "a global assassination campaign that defends the rule of law and the Constitution."

International law is for countries that have the will and ability to oppose terrorism that originates from within their sovereign borders. Take care of your own internal problems and this won't be a problem for your country.

Where does it stop? Should we send drones into Mexico after the Mexican drug lords? Afterall, one could make a case that their barbaric treatment of humans and the insidious poison that they peddle to US citizens is an "act of terrorism".

Have any of you stopped to think that we are setting an awful precedent with all this? Would you feel any differently if Cuba decided to blast Cuban refugees in Miami with their own drones? One second you are enjoying a Cafe con Leche in Little Havana, and the next you are collateral damage to some foreign nation's witch hunt... How does that sound?

Where does it stop? Should we send drones into Mexico after the Mexican drug lords? Afterall, one could make a case that their barbaric treatment of humans and the insidious poison that they peddle to US citizens is an "act of terrorism".

Have any of you stopped to think that we are setting an awful precedent with all this? Would you feel any differently if Cuba decided to blast Cuban refugees in Miami with their own drones? One second you are enjoying a Cafe con Leche in Little Havana, and the next you are collateral damage to some foreign nation's witch hunt... How does that sound?

First off, thank you for disagreeing without including any demeaning comments. Thank you for focusing your answer on the issue.

Where does it stop? Good question. I guess when acts of terrorism stop.

While I agree with your assessment of Mexican Drug Lords, I don't believe "pedaling poison" (getting people to pay "you" to inflict harm on themselves) is quite the same level of evil as people actually trying to kill you. There's an unfortunate demand for their poison but there's not any similar demand to be randomly murdered. Of course, "getting people to pay to use your product to harm themselves" sounds eerily similar to alcohol and tobacco companies, and even junk food restaurants.

I suppose if Cuban refugees in the US are actively engaged in a terror campaign against Cuba then it would be hypocritical of the US to not do what we can to put a stop to it.

It's the randomness of terrorism that scares us, just like it's the apparent randomness of drone strikes that offends us. If we could be sure that every drone strike only affected known terrorists then there might be less opposition.

There are two problems here fundamentally 1) who and what defines what an act of terrorism is and how is it bounded? Do we the people control or vote on the definition or do a select few decide what is and isn't a terrorist act? Because if you cannot see the flaw in the latter may god or whoever you do or don't pray to help you. 2) as with the war on drugs the assumption is if you end the war on drugs and legalize it all, mass addiction is going to run rampant causing breakdown. Alcohol and tobacco proves this not to be true and not everyone chooses to drink or smoke or becomes addicted, addiction is based on the individual and must be treated as such. The same comparison can be drawn to terrorism, if you end the war on terror you assume some sort of massive counter offensive by terrorists when the likelihood of that is minimal at best. Dealing with terrorism needs to be done on the individual level, you need to understand why this person hates others so much that they could kill people.

Until you understand the cause of the addiction or the cause of the hate you will just give the people who are susceptible to those things more reasons to go that direction. In some ways you could even make the case that terrorism could be an addiction, an addiction to hate those who have been deemed an enemy to you. History as proved this is a losing battle, there is no sure way to stop it or define it or even know when it is coming, the only things you can do is try to reduce it by understanding it, contain it when it happens and be ready in the event that it does happen.

I've never heard mass addiction as the main reason for anyone being against legalizing drugs.

I'm glad you asked about the definition because that was exactly the point that I was driving at, well let's see The Free Dictionary defines it as such: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.

So was the theater shooting in Colorado an "act of terrorism"? It fits the description and since it does, is the use of a drone legal by the terms laid forth by our President? The answer those questions right now is no and no. It was just a random act of violence by a sick man but who's to say the policy cannot be applied in a case like this because no one is overseeing the mechanize behind it. My point here is that this policy is way to open ended to be helpful in anyway and sets a horrible precedent for future policies of this nature.

My understanding of the hatred of terrorism is simple and maybe I'm wrong but terrorism or any large act of violence usually stems from a deep seeded fundamental value against something (of course some small portion of these acts are committed by the insane or ill). Whether that value is derived due to exposer to death, destruction, cultural immersion, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or simply blind hate you need to understand it. I feel everyone should have a right to their way of life, a right that doesn't infringe upon others liberties. I know that is a noble statement and the world is far from that type of place. The US based on economic, social or even political agendas influences world policies to suit itself and that leads to resent and hate toward the country. We as a country could be doing more to curb that perception.

Oh and as to your last question, if there is no fear of wider addiction then why control the substance? Wouldn't you agree that would be a colossal waste of time and money?